Why not? You have posted his numbers in the past haven't you? The WSJ last year in May revealed to the public that Matador was down 12% at the time, why the silence from Vic and the fans since then? There should be nothing to hide correct? After all, he did very well in the first three years didn't he and wasn't shy about sharing those numbers with the public was he?
If I thought you could, I wouldn't offer myself up. My challenge has been on the table since I came here in 2004 and as of yet no one has proved me wrong because they can't. Hombre, the gentlemen you ok'd to sit in on the last test walked away convinced that everything I said, did and proved was valid and told you so here on ET. You said you would stand by his verdict prior to the test . . . then you had the thread deleted. You are not an honorable person and that speaks volumes.
Is this a forum about Dr. Niederhoffer, or one about the Trading Markets research? Although traders may disagree as to the definition of "trend" or "trend trading," those who define it as 3, 4, 5 or 6 consecutive higher closes should look at the TM article. The TM research did not surprise me one bit. Wealth lab has a wealth of systems that already tested that hypothesis. I wonder how often TM gets its ideas from Wealth lab systems?
surf, what you are attempting is to prove a negative. It is a fool's errand. Ask Hume about his pet swan. I don't question your intelligence. But when it comes to this topic your emotions have hog tied your intellect and usurped command.
But to say something doesn't work now, using statistics as proof -- how do you know it won't work perfectly tomorrow? Isn't assuming that statistics don't "lie" the same assumption that a trend in motion will stay in motion? In other words, trendfollowing doesn't work . . . until it does?
The study analyzed seven million trades over the last 11 years, and found that trend following (as defined in the study) doesn't work. Now think of a loaded coin. You flip it seven million times, and it shows tails 85% of the time. Is there any room to argue that it may show heads more often than heads in the next seven million flips? I guess what I am trying to say is that there is a lot more reason to say that the trend following technique specified in the article will never work, than to say that it might work in the future.
I love it when people say a method I have been using for 10 years does not work and is statistically insignifcant. It just means it will work for another 10 years. For those doubters I challenge you to trade consistently against strong trends and exit your postion BEFORE a new downward trend starts. See how much money you make. If your theories are correct you should be able to retire very soon.
Trend following works. I followed the trend from July 2006 to end-Dec 2006 and it was very profitable. Now the trend has lost momentum and I have done successful shorting trades this month. I will keep shorting unless I get stopped out 1-2 times then I will switch to going long again. I think we need some pullback/correction before we get fuel for the next leg up if the trend is to continue. Otherwise if a downtrend is starting, no problem, just follow it! But bottomline you have to go with the trend unless you are a good contrarian player, which is a tough business. My live trading and market analysis and commentary are published on my blog http://lauristonletter.blogspot.com/
I kind of feel the same way. Almost all my trades are pullbacks in a trend so I find this debate very strange. There must be a semantical divergence at play. I use the classic higher high and higher low definition that Dow put forth decades ago. How can anyone deny that the indexes were trending up tuesday and wednesday and down thursday or that those who played the pullbacks in those trends made out pretty well.